Does 3E/3.5 dictate a certain style of play?

[molonel]

Finally, molonel, changing the outcome of a die roll because you don't like the result you get is cheating, pure and simple. It doesn't matter if it is during character generation, combat, or whathaveyou. You may argue that cheating is "just good sense", but that doesn't change what it is.

And when the system only rewards outcomes above a certain point, it is drastically encouraging cheating. It wasn't that I just "Didn't like" the result. There were simply no rewards whatsoever for lower results, or very little.

Percentile strength, in and of itself, was stupid. The fact that you could go from 16 (+0/+1) to 17 (+1/+1) to 18/00 (+3?!?!/+6?!?!) encouraged that sort of stupidity.

I was in junior high. But I could still do the math.

You guys asked what the obvious solutions for powergaming in 1st Edition were. I'm just sayin' that was easy enough for a 12 year old to figure out.

 

[Lanefan]

Actually, the 1e rules don't actually say that. They say magic-users and illusionist cannot wear armor, but provide no prohibition on casting magic-user spells in armor. Armored 1e fighter/magic-users casting in full plate were the order of the day.

Did we (all) houserule that, then? Because I'm sure there was some sort of prohibition against casting out of metal armour, and a penalty if casting out of leather or similar...might not have applied to Elves, though...?

Lanefan

 

[thedungeondelver]

Actually, the 1e rules don't actually say that. They say magic-users and illusionist cannot wear armor, but provide no prohibition on casting magic-user spells in armor. Armored 1e fighter/magic-users casting in full plate were the order of the day.

No it isn't. From the PLAYER'S HANDBOOK:

2. The character may mix functions freely and still gain experience, although restrictions regarding armor, shield, and/or weapon apply with regard to operations particular to one or both classes.

(emphasis mine)

 

[ruleslawyer]

Nope. That's in 2e, but not in 1e. In 1e, it was absolutely permissible to cast spells while wearing armor if you were multiclassed or dual-classed.

 

[thedungeondelver]

Did we (all) houserule that, then? Because I'm sure there was some sort of prohibition against casting out of metal armour, and a penalty if casting out of leather or similar...might not have applied to Elves, though...?

Lanefan

Elves didn't suffer that restriction, no.

 

[thedungeondelver]

Nope. That's in 2e, but not in 1e. In 1e, it was absolutely permissible to cast spells while wearing armor if you were multiclassed or dual-classed.

Nope. See the quote from the PLAYER'S HANDBOOK above yours.[/b]

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Did we (all) houserule that, then? Because I'm sure there was some sort of prohibition against casting out of metal armour, and a penalty if casting out of leather or similar...might not have applied to Elves, though...?

I didn't house-rule it. A multi-classed fighter/magic-user in OAD&D could use armor and cast spells. In fact, here's a quote from the Players Handbook, pg 18:

Note that non-human and semi-human race characters who are multi-classed are typically bound by the limitations of the thief class, only. That is, a fighter/magic-user can benefit from both armor, weaponry, and spells; a fighter/thief is limited by the constraints of the thief class.

 

[Psion]

Actually, the 1e rules don't actually say that. They say magic-users and illusionist cannot wear armor, but provide no prohibition on casting magic-user spells in armor.

Incorrect.

Multiclass characters could cast spells in armor. Dual class characters ("character with two classes") could not. Even once they surpassed the level of their original class, they were still required to abide by armor restrictions to act as a magic user (1e PHB, page 33, bullet point 2 under "Character with two classes").

Which, all other abuses of the system considered, was fair enough. Dual classed characters got to keep the HP of their first class instead of being forced to go with the average like multiclass.

 

[thedungeondelver]

Wait - was the discussion about multi-class or dual-class? If it was multi-class then no, there was no restriction. I was referring strictly to dual-class (for humans).

 

[Raven Crowking]

You guys asked what the obvious solutions for powergaming in 1st Edition were. I'm just sayin' that was easy enough for a 12 year old to figure out.

Sure. And in any edition, you get better bonuses for having higher scores. Just say you rolled all 18s. And, hey, there isn't a reward for rolling a 5 on an attack roll....why not just say it was a 20?

You can blame the game system for your cheating, if it makes you feel better, but that doesn't make the game system responsible.


RC